should america support Israel?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sure, again one possible outcome that I have admitted to, which you are clearly focussed on because you are looking at this through your emotions rather than logic.

Noi. I've addressed your suggested policy on the logical level as well, when I pointed out that such a policy is unlikely to be effective given the absence of a strong central government which can compel obedience to surrender/cease-fire agreements. Recent events have supporteed my points.

You can ask ten people on what constitute morality, and you'll get hundred opinions on what morality is. Are you proposing that you have an absolute monopoly on what constitutes morality?

No, but I certainly have my opinion. My opinion is that killing unarmed civilians in wartime is immoral. Not surprisingly, it's a pretty widely-shared view.

And to answer the question you're about to ask, yes, parking your rocket batteries in civilian areas so that civilians get killed is immoral, as well.

It isn't a moral question.

Certainly it is. You're arguing that the Israelis are right in their actions.

Secondly, at the times, the reason behind that bombing was to send a clear message to the German population that they were losing the war, and only an unconditional surrender would be acceptable for two reasons: 1) the Nazis had vowed to fight to the last man - they were even enlisted young boys as young as 10 year old to fight; 2) in WW1, many Germans, including the Nazis, firmly believed that Germany had not lost the war as little destruction had taken place on German soil. So this time in WW2, the Allies were making sure that their message was clear. Debating whether that was moral or not is an exercise in futility.

I disagree, in part, and I agree, in part. Forgive me while I go into it a bit:

The German population had already by that time a clear knowledge that they were losing the war. They knew this in 1944, when the Russians marched into Prussia and the Western Allies came up upon the Rhine. They knew it when they viewed the bombed-out centers of Cologne, Hamburg, Lubeck, Schweinfurt, and Berlin itself. Indeed, the very fact that the Germans were indeed impressing young boys from the HJ into battle told the civilians exactly how desperate matters had become. So firebombing Dresden was not necessary to "send a message".

The alternative - invading Japan - could have produced more fatalities both on the US and Japanese sides. Thinking that this altenative is more moral is a futile debate.

That wasn't the only alternative. The submarine/mining blockade was dragging the Japanese economy to a halt very quickly by August of 1945.

Get your fact straightened out, I wasn't informing you that hamas' policy is an atrocity, but that Hamas can easly project its authority, which you claimed they couldn't.

I was giving you []imy[/i] opinion of Hamas' policy. As for being able to project its power into the Palestinians so that they will act in concert, I disagree. They may be able to crash into some homes and set up rocket batteries, but if a truce/peace is brought about, will they be able to control individual suicide bombers or other terrorists? Will they be able to command allegiance and respect for their authority?

Get your facts straightened: the PA rules over the West Bank; Hamas rules over Gaza. And Hamas has clearly demonstrated it has complete control over its "extremists" in Gaza.

So what makes you think that Hamas can compel those extremists to abandon their position after the bombing of civilians?

That you can't get many of the facts straight proves otherwise.

That I've made one mistake here doesn't undermine my point. That you cannot view the problem from any lens other than your own does, however, make your views irreparably biased, and unworthy of further consideration.